The governance of nanotechnology in the Brazilian context: Entangling approaches

Abstract The present article discusses the governance of nanotechnology in the Brazilian context. By firstly identifying what we term as the European model of governance we conclude that the Brazilian policy and research environment of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology does not similarly emphasise Anticipatory Governance processes, based on anticipating future scenarios of controversies and risks and broadening the participation in the upstream phase of development. Instead, there has been a predominant concern on the promotion of competiveness and a lack of debate of environmental, health and safety issues. However, we identify the Social Technology approach as a potentially distinct mode of governance in the Brazilian context. Although it has not hitherto been applied to the local or global nanotechnology governance practices, it shares many of the tenets of the Anticipatory Governance approach. We conclude with an entanglement of both approaches and propose the concept of Social Nanotechnologies, which we suggest to be a feasible research agenda for the governance of emerging technologies in semi-peripheral contexts such as Brazil.

[1]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .

[2]  Noela Invernizzi,et al.  Características distintivas del desarrollo de las nanotecnologías en América Latina , 2012 .

[3]  Sabine Maasen,et al.  Governing Future Technologies : Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime , 2010 .

[4]  Arvids A. Ziedonis,et al.  The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980 , 2001 .

[5]  David H. Guston,et al.  Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy , 1996 .

[6]  S. Hilgartner,et al.  The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  R. Dagnino.  Ciência e tecnologia no Brasil : o processo decisório e a comunidade de pesquisa , 2007 .

[8]  R. Dias,et al.  Brazilian Science and Technology Policy: Why is it not Socially Oriented? , 2010 .

[9]  L. O. Ladeira,et al.  Using Converter Dust to Produce Low Cost Cementitious Composites by in situ Carbon Nanotube and Nanofiber Synthesis , 2011, Materials.

[10]  Jim Whitman.  The governance of nanotechnology , 2007 .

[11]  Arie Rip,et al.  Constructive Technology Assessment and Socio-Technical Scenarios. , 2008 .

[12]  B. A. D. União.  Relatório de Gestão: exercício 2007 , 2003 .

[13]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change , 1995 .

[14]  P. Macnaghten,et al.  Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom , 2011 .

[15]  H Roberts,et al.  Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity , 1994 .

[16]  Henrique E. Toma.  Interfaces e organização da pesquisa no Brasil: da Química à Nanotecnologia , 2005 .

[17]  Hernán Thomas,et al.  Efectos de transducción: una nuevacrítica a la transferencia acrítica deconceptos y modelos institucionales , 2005 .

[18]  C. Mitcham,et al.  Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within , 2006 .

[19]  A. Rip,et al.  The past and future of constructive technology assessment , 1997 .

[20]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Wising up : the public and new technologies , 2000 .

[21]  Daniel Barben,et al.  Analyzing acceptance politics: Towards an epistemological shift in the public understanding of science and technology , 2010 .

[22]  Matthew Kearnes,et al.  Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences? , 2005 .

[23]  David H. Guston,et al.  Real-time technology assessment , 2020, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[24]  J. Guivant.  Heterogeneous and unconventional coalitions around global food risks: integrating Brazil into the debates , 2002 .

[25]  D. Collingridge.  The social control of technology , 1980 .

[26]  S. Jasanoff.  Designs on Nature , 2005 .

[27]  G. Foladori,et al.  Nanotechnology and the developing world: will nanotechnology overcome poverty or widen disparities? , 2005 .

[28]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Handbook of Science and Technology Studies , 1995 .

[29]  R. Doubleday,et al.  Questioning Interdisciplinarity: What Roles for Laboratory Based Social Science? , 2010, Nano Meets Macro.

[30]  Howard F. Marx.  Unlocking the secrets of the first airplane to fly: the Wright Flyer Project story , 2001 .

[31]  A. Rip.  Folk Theories of Nanotechnologists , 2006, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[32]  M. Callon,et al.  Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy , 2009 .

[33]  Joy Bill,et al.  Why the future doesn’t need us , 2003 .

[34]  Mike Michael,et al.  Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge , 2003 .

[35]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea , 2009 .

[36]  Rosalyn Berne.  21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act , 2005 .

[37]  Erik Fisher,et al.  Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions , 2007 .

[38]  E. F. Schumacher.  Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered , 1973 .

[39]  R. Westrum.  The Social Construction of Technological Systems , 1989 .

[40]  A. Irwin.  The Politics of Talk , 2006 .

[41]  Noela Invernizzi,et al.  Nanotechnology and the developing world: Will nanotechnology overcome poverty or widen disparities? , 2005 .

[42]  V. Arza,et al.  Innovation, Sustainability, Development and Social Inclusion: Lessons from Latin America , 2011 .

[43]  P. Shapira,et al.  The Potential of Nanotechnology for Equitable Economic Development: The Case of Brazil , 2010 .

[44]  Joachim Schummer,et al.  Cultural diversity in nanotechnology ethics. , 2011, Journal international de bioethique = International journal of bioethics.

[45]  М. Д. Шарапиева,et al.  Social innovation: concepts, research fields and international trends. , 2012 .

[46]  UM ENFOQUE TECNOLÓGICO PARA INCLUSÃO SOCIAL , 2008 .

[47]  Douglas K. Martin,et al.  Nanotechnology and the Developing World , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[48]  Michael Nentwich,et al.  EUROpTA: European Participatory Technology Assessment - Participatory Methods in Technology Assessment and Technology Decision-Making , 2000 .

[49]  Noela Invernizzi.  Visions of Brazilian Scientists on Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies , 2008 .

[50]  Noela Invernizzi.  Science Policy and Social Inclusion: Advances and Limits of Brazilian Nanotechnology Policy , 2010 .

[51]  Joshua M. Pearce,et al.  Barriers to Appropriate Technology Growth in Sustainable Development , 2011, Journal of Sustainable Development.

[52]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? , 2006, Public Health Genomics.

[53]  T. Pinch,et al.  The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other , 1984 .

[54]  B. Latour.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[55]  B. Latour.  Science in Action , 1987 .

[56]  C. Freeman.  Economics of Industrial Innovation , 1975 .

[57]  Pierre-Benoit Joly,et al.  Lost in Translation? The Need for ‘Upstream Engagement’ with Nanotechnology on Trial , 2008 .

[58]  João Carlos Camargo,et al.  Analysis of hydrogen production from combined photovoltaics, wind energy and secondary hydroelectricity supply in Brazil , 2005 .